The Letter and Spirit of the Law
by Cyd Athens

This week's column was written by Oregon-based Leather woman, Cyd Athens.

Recently I was the inadvertent and unintentional instigator of what became a rather heated dispute. The particulars are not the issue. Rather, the issue was whether the spirit or the letter of the law should prevail under the circumstances. In hindsight, I realize, of course, that this distinction is sometimes significant, and that there are those who have an emotional investment in not only their beliefs, but also in seeing things resolved with the outcome that their opinions see as right. Because of the way my mind works, this brought my attention around to leather "play" and the impact that letter of the law vs. spirit of the law has.

For example, let's say a top and bottom have been cruising each other for some time, and the timing, ambiance, etc., are finally right for them to get together for a scene. The pair, satisfied with their communications so far, agree that they are compatible enough to schedule a time and place for the scene to commence. So far, so good.

Later they meet again, this time at a designated place, for the specific purpose of having the scene. The top is resplendent in tight blue jeans, covered by well-worn and well-cared for leather chaps, leather boots, keys on the left, black hanky in the left rear pocket, black T-shirt with an appropriately pithy saying on the front, leather vest, complete with the run pins of every leather event she has attended from her first day as a leather dyke, a toy bag to die for, leather of course, and filled with enough of the latest and greatest SM devices to be a coveted item as she strolls into the dungeon.

There, on her knees, with eyes downcast, waiting to meet her date for the evening, is the bottom. She, too has taken great care in readying herself for the evening's activities. Patiently she kneels, in her faded jeans and white tank top, wearing nothing else, as she had been instructed by the top.

The top smiles in anticipation. She puts down her toy bag, opens it, and withdraws a length of chain and a lock, which she fastens around the bottom's neck. To this she adds a lead. She instructs the bottom to pick up the toy bag and follow her. The bottom stands to perform this task, so infuriating the top that the evening ends before it has even begun. The top removes the lock and chain from the bottom, and storms off in a huff, leaving the bottom to wonder what had just happened.

Some time later, both parties hear through the rumor mill that each was the one responsible for the evening not working out. And each of the women has a number of staunch supporters who are firmly ìon their side.î About the only thing that the two women can agree upon is that the other woman was wrong. Unfortunately, not only can they not agree about anything else, but their intense focus on being right has greatly diminished their ability to look at the situation objectively.

So, objectively, what really happened?

Among other things, it appears that the essence of the breach was simply a conflict between the letter and the spirit of the law. The top, when she instructed the bottom to pick up the toy bag and follow her was expecting her to do just that and nothing else. Since the bottom was already on her knees, the top was expecting her to remain there, crawling behind carrying the toy bag. The top was absolutely right in her expectation that the bottom should do this, as she had not been instructed otherwise. This was, after all, the letter of the law.

The bottom, however, interpreted things in her own way by standing to pick the toy bag up and carry it. After all, she had not been instructed not to stand. She, too, was absolutely right in her expectation as she attempted to carry out the spirit of the law.

The sad thing is that instead of communicating about the conflict, the top stormed off, thinking negative thoughts about the bottom, who in turn reciprocated with equally negative thoughts about the top. In addition, there was no debriefing or time out so that they could come together at a later time to at least try to understand, if not resolve, the conflict.

Do these sorts of misunderstandings really happen?

It has been my experience that they do. And while this example may appear trite and inconsequential, too often the issues that arise are considerably more weighty, with emotions flying much higher all around as reputations are damaged, feelings hurt, friendships destroyed, and relationships severed. Bottoms complain that tops are abusive, demeaning, and just plain rude, while tops refute this with their own claims that bottoms are lazy, stupid, ill-behaved or worse.

Often, in cases where the letter vs. the spirit of the law are at issue, part of the conflict surrounds whether or not the law itself was clearly communicated and understood by all affected parties. Generally if the law is important, it is the responsibility of the law-maker to disseminate sufficient information that most breaches cannot be anything other than intentional. However, this should be mitigated by the reasonable expectation that those expected to follow the law are in fact capable of doing so.

Generally speaking, once a top and bottom have negotiated a scene, it is up to the top to make, impart, and enforce the ìlaw.î It is also up to the top to insure that the bottom understands and is able to comply with the law. For the bottom, it is imperative that they have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Are they expected to follow the letter or the spirit of the law? What, if any, provisions exist in case they find the law unclear or impossible? Are all parties committed to communication or are they more invested in being ìright?î

Occasionally, the conflicting sides will actually sit down and make the effort to communicate. And when they do, it is often a wondrous thing. Let's revisit the top and bottom from the example above with improved communication in mind.

The top smiles in anticipation. She puts down her toy bag, opens it, and withdraws a length of chain and a lock, which she fastens around the bottom's neck. To this she adds a lead. She instructs the bottom to pick up the toy bag and follow her. The bottom stands to perform this task.

The top raises an eyebrow, and leans toward the bottom, telling her that she had not been told to stand up. She further clarifies her expectations by telling the bottom to pick up the bag and carry it while remaining on her knees.

The bottom blushes in embarrassment over her apparent error. Now that she has a clearer picture of what she is expected to do, she picks up the bag, and crawls behind her date for the evening, bag in hand. As she crawls, she makes a mental note to herself to pay better attention to the top. It appears that this bottom has indeed gotten ìlucky,î and found a top with whom to play who has the ability, willingness, and confidence to clearly communicate what is the law and what is expected of the bottom.

--

Have a great week. You can leave me email at mrjackr@leathermail.com
or visit my website at http://www.LeatherViews.com/